• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

TRANSCRIPT STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE ECONOMY AND INFRASTRUCTURE Subcommittee Inquiry into infrastructure projects Melbourne — 19 October 2016 Members Mr Joshua Morris — Chair Mr Bernie Finn Mr Khalil Eideh — Deputy Chair Ms Colleen Hartland Mr Jeff Bourman Mr Shaun Leane Mr Nazih Elasmar Mr Craig Ondarchie Participating member Ms Samantha Dunn Staff Secretary: Lilian Topic Witnesses Professor Ian Meredith, AM, director, MonashHeart, and Mr Andrew Stripp, chief executive officer, Monash Health. 19 October 2016 Standing Committee on the Economy and Infrastructure 1 The CHAIR — I declare open the Standing Committee on the Economy and Infrastructure public hearing, and thank you to our witnesses who are present here this morning. Today we are hearing evidence in relation to our infrastructure inquiry, and the evidence today is being recorded. This hearing is to inform the third of at least six reports into infrastructure projects, and witnesses present may well be invited to attend future hearings as the inquiry continues. All evidence taken today is protected by parliamentary privilege; therefore you are protected for what you say in here today, but if you go outside and repeat those same things, those comments may not be protected by the same privilege. Once again, gentlemen, thank you for your attendance today and for providing some testimony to the committee. At this point I might hand over to your good selves for any introductory comments that you might like to make about the work that you are doing, and then we will move into some questions from the committee from there — so to whomever would like to begin. Mr STRIPP — Maybe I will start, and thank you. My name is Andrew Stripp. I currently work as the chief executive of Monash Health. I was appointed to that position at the end of May of this year, and I guess have been working with Professor Meredith and many others in relation to the development of the planning for the new heart hospital. It is something that we are very excited about developing, and we are in that process at the moment where business case planning, refinement of what and how we will deliver the service is very much happening. We are very happy to take questions in terms of our work that we are doing. The CHAIR — Professor Meredith, is there anything you might like to add? Prof. MEREDITH — Not much. I have been professor and director of MonashHeart at Monash Medical Centre and Monash Health since September 2005, and this project that we are discussing is something that we have developed over the last 14 years to try and set in place an ideal structure for managing the growing demand of cardiovascular disease and the ageing of the population and increasing burden and density of risk factors associated with the modern Western lifestyle. The CHAIR — Could you just give us a brief overview of that 14 years in terms of how it is that we have got to where we are at this point, considering that obviously well over a decade of work has gone into where we are now? What does that look like? Prof. MEREDITH — The work really began as we saw the growing population in the south-eastern corridor and the increasing demand and the capacity limitations of our current infrastructure and the ability to really keep up with the growing demand and the changing complexity of cardiovascular medicine. As it is with so many specialities, there is an increasing technological advancement and changing complexity. We needed to have capacity. We needed to develop infrastructure that was not limited by concepts derived from the 20th century or even the 1980s, to be honest. The way medicine is really changing today, we need to have a system that is ready to cope with disruptive change and changing infrastructure. So they were the two underlying principles we started from — how could we actually meet the demands of the population going forward, how could we futureproof the service, how could we provide safe, timely and effective care — and accessible care — for the next generation and beyond? One of our big limitations in doing those things is meeting the changing technological face of cardiovascular medicine, which is probably one of the most rapidly evolving fields. There are other drivers as well — the opportunity to be at the face of med tech development, which globally is a very large business. Melbourne, with its tremendous infrastructure, is well positioned to have further med tech development in the health space, particularly in the hospital space. We saw all these things as potential opportunities to build appropriate infrastructure for the future. The CHAIR — I suppose one of the questions that has been posed around the heart hospital is its location. I am just wondering why it is that you believe the project should be a standalone on the Monash campus rather than co-located with Monash Medical Centre. Prof. MEREDITH — The first thing I would say is that the government have made the decision, and that is the decision they came to. It was a five-year period before that where the pros and cons of various models were assessed in detail by an independent strategic advisory committee. That was based on published documents pertaining to choosing the right cardiovascular delivery model for your health system, and such publications are out there. We carefully analysed those publications and looked at the pros and cons of various models. There really are five potential ways that this could be done, of which the primary two are co-location on the same site or building a standalone at the Monash University site. I think there are strengths and weaknesses with both. 19 October 2016 Standing Committee on the Economy and Infrastructure 2 There are many strengths for the infrastructure of medical education and capacity development by building on the Monash University site. I think there are arguments pro and con for both. There are many strengths, though, for the university-based development. I should say it is not without precedent. There are more than 100 dedicated standalone heart hospitals around the world, many of them 2 to 3 kilometres away from other general medical hospitals. I myself, over the last 14 years, have visited nearly 50 such establishments around the world. So the model is safe. It is effective. It allows for futureproofing. It allows for dynamic change to the structure of the hospital to meet technological changes that come along. I think there are strengths and weaknesses with both models, though. The model that the government has actually chosen I think is a very reasonable model, and we are working along, building a business plan around that model. The CHAIR — You say there was a decision of government to do what is happening now. Is that your preference? Do you see that as the best of the two outcomes? If you were to be the one making that choice, would you have chosen the model that the government has gone with or would you have chosen the co-location model? Prof. MEREDITH — Personally I would have chosen this model. I think it provides greater futureproofing. Wellington Road is an eight-lane road and Blackburn Road is a six-lane road. It provides infrastructure for heliports and it provides infrastructure for other developments on that site, so that would be my preference, but had it been built on the Monash Health existing campus, that would also have been fine. The Monash Health existing campus already has 51 medical specialties and more than 7000 employees. I think to expand to another campus is quite reasonable when Monash Health is already a five or six-campus structure with cross-campus activities that are quite differentiated. So to me, it is a very reasonable and logical model. As I say, of the five potential options for how this could be done, the top two were really a standalone building on the Clayton Road site or a standalone structure. The standalone structure offers a great deal for the development of medical education and medical tourism and for leveraging the extraordinary research and technology facilities that are at the university to build a true med tech hospital, so there are many strengths in that model. The CHAIR — You have spoken about the strengths. What are some of the risks associated with building the standalone heart hospital? Prof. MEREDITH — Of the perceived risks, one that is often talked about in public is the duplication of services — that would be one . It is perceived by some to be less safe. This of course is not really true. As I said, there are more than 100 such establishments around the world, and many of these operate at a higher level than the services that we can currently deliver from our constrained infrastructure. When you talk about safety, there are many elements to patient safety. Is it a case of actually delivering inferior-quality care? No, because that is a volume-related issue. Is it the case that the patient might go to the wrong establishment? The vast majority of patients will come by emergency services, and such patients will naturally flow directly to the heart hospital. There are always going to be transfer issues, but these have been well worked out around the world in other models. And then what if the patient were to deteriorate, or their health were to deteriorate? Well, you are building into the hospital all of the vertical infrastructure that you actually need. So you would not build a heart hospital without an intensive care unit, but it is a cardiac intensive care unit.

Load more

  9

Copy Link